GSLV, Rocket Lab: Looking Good

That’s understandable. India is like America in the late 20th century, where spaceflight is involved: and is rapidly catching up. I’m not euphoric, quite, but I see what’s happening as very good news for everyone.

Rocket Lab’s Electron test launch wasn’t entirely successful. But the company thinks they can get the system working, and plan to start commercial launches later this year.

Rockets in Space: “Absurd?”

It’s true: someone actually opined that rockets won’t work in a vacuum.

An op-ed in The New York Times said that Robert H. Goddard “…does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react….”

That was in 1920. On July 17, 1969, one day after the Apollo 11 mission set out for Earth’s moon, The Times published a clarification:

“JULY 17, 1969: On Jan. 13, 1920, Topics of The Times, an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows: ‘That Professor Goddard, with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react — to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.’

Working under a grant from the Smithsonian Institution’s Hodgkins Fund, Goddard had been developing a “multiple-charge rocket for exploring the unknown upper layers of the earth’s atmosphere.” We call them multistage rockets these days.

America’s national government runs the Smithsonian Institution, including the Hodgkins Fund. Since the Hodgkins Fund’s principle may not cover its administrative costs, The Times may have thought Goddard’s research was wasting tax dollars.

Thomas George Hodgkins

The Hodgkins Fund and Medal go back to 1893. By the time he died, Thomas George Hodgkins had given away his fortune: about a half-million dollars.

He was born in London, England, in 1803. His father was a gentleman “in reduced circumstances.” Trouble with a stepmother ended when he was 15.

That’s when he signed on as a crewman on a ship headed for Calcutta. Shipwreck, illness, and determination left him alive but barefoot-poor in India.

Decades later, he was very far from poor; at least financially.

He had no family, no close relatives, and a vast fortune that he wouldn’t be needing when his life was over. Figuring he’d do a better job than some executor, he began giving his money to pubic institutions, including the Smithsonian.

By the time he died in 1892, he’d given away everything.

The Smithsonian got part of his fortune. The institution started awarding the Hodgkins medal, and part of the money, to encourage “important contributions to knowledge of the physical environment bearing upon the welfare of man.”

In my youth, Goddard was mostly known for his groundbreaking development of liquid-fueled rocket engines.

That was and is very important technology, and probably easier to explain than his work with ‘multiple-charge rockets.’

A rocket’s efficiency matters, a lot, since lifting even a small payload into orbit takes a great deal of reaction mass: the stuff the rocket ‘pushes against.’

For most rockets today, the fuel is also the reaction mass. Burning fuel produces hot gas at high pressure.

The rocket engine ‘pushes against’ the hot gas it’s shooting out its nozzle. The faster the gas gets pushed out, the higher a rocket’s efficiency. The hotter the ‘fire,’ the more energy gets transferred to the gas, also boosting efficiency.

The Dawn spacecraft’s gridded ion thruster is much more efficient than chemical rocket engines. But that sort of engine’s thrust is very low, so they’re useful only after a payload’s lifted off a planet or moon.

Multistage rockets are more efficient, in terms of physics, since they drop parts of the vehicle that have used up their fuel, leaving the rest with a lighter load.

Economically, they’re far from ideal.

After the Shuttle missions ended, and before SpaceX started building reusable boost stages, getting something into orbit meant throwing vehicles away after one use.

Commercial air service wouldn’t work, if a company had to throw away each airplane after one flight.

If we’re doing both right, faith and science work together. Using the brains God gave us, studying this wonder-filled universe and using that knowledge, is part of being human. (Catechism, 39, 159, 282–289, 341, 2293–2295)

What’s changed recently is how much we know about this universe: including the moon and stars mentioned in Psalms.

I see that as an opportunity for greater admiration of God’s work, not a threat to faith. (Catechism, 283, 341)

Space Flight and Psalms

“Manned space flight . . . has opened for us thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. Our outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe only confirms our belief in its creator.”
(Wernher von Braun, cited in Awake! magazine (June 22, 1999), via Wikiquote)

“O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! You have set your majesty above the heavens!

“When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place –

“What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?

“Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor.”
(Psalms 8:2–6)

The vehicle’s first working mission launched ISRO’s GSAT-2 in 2003. Since then it’s been a workhorse vehicle, launching from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre on Sriharikota. Most payloads have been communications satellites.

As an American, part of me is glad that the Saturn V is still the tallest and heaviest launch vehicle; and the most powerful, in terms of total impulse.

The last Saturn V launched in 1973. It’s still a huge rocket, although it’s the largest by as great a margin as it was during the Apollo missions and in the days of Skylab.

I’d be astounded if it’s the biggest vehicle we ever build for Earth-to-space transport. We’re still in the very early days of spaceflight, and off-Earth exploration and development is no longer a governments-only game.

About America, India, and the Saturn V, like I said: I’m an American.

But I’m also human, so I’m glad that folks around the world are developing aerospace transportation systems and infrastructure we’ll use in coming centuries.

Aside from thinking that competition can keep folks from getting sloppy, having backups arguably makes sense.2

Besides, folks in my country engage in trade. More and wealthier potential trade partners and customers aren’t a threat. They’re opportunities. Particularly if my country’s national government doesn’t meddle with business deals, and that’s yet another topic.

A Snapshot From Space

(From AFP, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Isro has been popular for sharing onboard footage from its missions”
(BBC News))

They like it. A lot: “The triumph of ‘Baahubali’: Amazing ‘selfies’ from @ISRO rocket” and “Delightful @isro India’s Baahubali rocket….”

I can see why folks call India’s launch vehicle a Bahubali. He’s a legendary figure for Jains. His name means “One With Strong Arms” in my language: or Armstrong, given our habit of compressing phrases.

Both the GSLV Mark III and experimental crew module both worked fine. The module went through its test of yaw, pitch, and roll, attitude control; handled reentry pretty much as expected; deployed its parachutes; and was picked up by India’s coast guard.

Judging from what ISRO is doing with hypersonic aircraft tests, my guess is that one of their objectives is developing a spaceplane along the lines of Reaction Engines’ Skylon.

Folks in India have a great deal to be excited about. So, I think, do the rest of us.

2. Rocket Lab’s Electron, and Spaceports

(From Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The two-stage rocket did not quite make it to orbit, but the team was very happy with the test flight”
(BBC News)

“An American company has launched a rocket into space from New Zealand, the first from a private launch facility.

“Rocket Lab’s 17m-long (56ft) Electron lifted off from the Mahia Peninsula, in the North Island, the firm said.

“The test flight was the first launch from New Zealand and is a major first step in an emerging market: launching cheap disposable rockets to carry small satellites and other payloads.

“The company plans to start frequent commercial launches later this year….”

The launch was good news, and not-so-good news. The Rocket Lab’s Electron lifted off with no problems, first stage separation worked fine, but the simulated payload didn’t make it all the way to its intended orbit. That’s not at all bad for a first test flight.

This flight also showed that ground facilities at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 on New Zealand’s North Island Mahia Peninsula are ready for use. It’s one of several privately-owned spaceports either in use, under construction, or proposed.

Today’s spaceports aren’t all, by my standards, ports. Not yet. Many are strictly launch facilities, since only SpaceX currently builds partly-reusable launch systems. As far as I know, anyway.

But I think it’s just a matter of time before we have freighters and passenger craft coming back for their next flight.

The Mahaia Peninsula is a good location for a spaceport these days, since we still have a far less than perfect record for flawless launches.

There’s pretty much nothing but ocean downrange, and air traffic over that part of the world isn’t as heavy as it is over existing port facilities like the Kennedy Space Center.

Spaceports

Safety issues aside, my guess is that spaceports will require lots of elbow room; at least in the near future. Launch vehicles are noisy, for one thing.

That, and the physics involved, may lead to some of Earth’s major port cities not being where land and water meet. Wide open spaces, particularly those near the equator and not far from existing transportation networks, may become prime real estate.

Meanwhile, Back in America

Elon Musk’s SpaceX says their Interplanetary Transport System, ITS, could be ready for their first Earth-Mars cargo run as early as 2020. I’ll be surprised if they’re ready that early.

The ITS isn’t just huge. Like the now-cancelled VentureStar, it’s significantly different from what we’ve done so far.

That includes extensive use of carbon fiber. Carbon fiber polymers are good for aerospace applications inside Earth’s atmosphere. The stuff looks good on paper for deep space missions.

But if I signed on for one of the planned settlement runs, I’d want assurance that the carbon fiber structures had been flight-tested for long missions.

The SpaceX timetable for Mars seems reasonable, if optimistic. The first Earth-Mars cargo run is penciled in for 2022 at the earliest, followed by a passenger run about two years later: one synodic period for Earth and Mars.

“Synodic period” is geek-speak for the time it takes for Earth and Mars, or any other two objects circling another one, to be in the same position relative to each other.

Even if the first colony ship was ready today, I wouldn’t be going. I’m rather old for that sort of thing, for starters.

But I’m certain that many folks would. I don’t see a problem with that, provided that we’ve developed the tech needed to make Martian settlements self-sustaining.

A few years ago, responding to what I’d written about living on Mars, someone expressed the opinion that folks should not be sent to die on Mars. I agree, in the sense that I think forcing someone to go would be a bad idea.

But since I’m no more than a few generations removed from folks who decided to “die in” North America, objecting to others making a similar decision doesn’t make sense. Not to me. And that’s yet again another topic, for another day.

Spaceships and Cities on Mars

Interplanetary spaceships and cities on Mars were ‘science fiction’ in my youth.

Science fiction can be carefully-calculated tales of folks dealing with events and technology that’s not here yet.

Others saw it as escapist fantasy suitable only for preteen boys whose parents didn’t care about their children’s education and reading habits.

I figure it can be all of the above, plus a bit.

And Now for Something Completely Different — Science Fiction’s Silly Side

Some, make that most, movies are made for two reasons: to entertain folks, and make money. Successful ones do both.

Some, like “Plan 9 from Outer Space,” are appreciated by some and put in ‘world’s worst’ lists made by not-so-positively-impressed viewers.

My guess, looking at science fiction films of the last few decades, is that cautious optimism isn’t ‘box office.’

Or maybe studio executives figure there’s no point in trying to top William Cameron Menzies’s 1933 “Things to Come.”

With that in mind, and since I’m feeling slightly snarky, I’ll present a scenario that may be too weird even for the movies.

But who knows? Someone might take this seriously. Now, without further ado, fresh from the murky depths of my mind4 —

Tidal waves and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions caused by global warming and the Antarctic ice cap’s collapse kill everyone in New York, Los Angeles, and places with good ‘disaster’ stock footage.

Survivors keep the angst going. Then they (what else?) die, helpless and hopeless, after lots of preachy dialog and screaming.

Except for a lone survivor, endlessly battling giant flying man-eating zombie cyborg piranha created when unregulated GMO corn pollutes — — — you get the idea. I lost track of how many Alien films featured assorted survivors and cloned victims.

But someone will eventually want to lift something bigger and heavier than the largest existing vehicle will carry. Then, if dividing the cargo into pieces isn’t practical, it’ll be time to build a bigger launch vehicle.

I’ve seen thoughtless optimism about “the future” turn to equally-unconsidered pessimism, and think both make little sense. (October 30, 2016)

Some of today’s plans will almost certainly go the way of other promising developments that fell short of their goals.

Good Ideas, Innovative and Unused: So Far

The VentureStar wouldn’t have been the tallest vehicle, but would have been impressive for its innovations: which included a linear aerospike engine. I think the basic idea shows very great promise.

Lockheed Martin couldn’t get the tech to work, not well enough for flight. So VentureStar development was canceled.

The inelegant but test-flown DC-X is another good, but abandoned, idea. The McDonnell Douglas DC-X was a one-third working scale model of their planned Delta Clipper cargo ship.

I still think the Delta Clipper made more sense for commercial development than the VentureStar. The DC-X used existing tech, and was designed for minimal maintenance and ground support.

I suspect that successful test flights of the DC-X model didn’t endear it to NASA brass who preferred the VentureStar. That’s speculation, and still another topic.

It didn’t help that the last test flight of the DC-X ended in a crash that destroyed the vehicle. There were definitely some bugs that needed work before commercial production. A debatable degree of cross-range maneuverability was another unresolved issue.

I strongly suspect that we’ll see cargo and passenger runs using vehicles like the Delta Clipper, VentureStar, Skylon — and designs we haven’t thought of yet. How soon that happens depends in large part on how badly folks want the service.

One more quote, and I’m done.

“A Planet is the Cradle….”

“Планета есть колыбель разума, но нельзя вечно жить в колыбели”
“A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever.”
(Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky, from a letter written in 1911, via Wikiquote)

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Brian H. Gill

I'm a sixty-something married guy with six kids, four surviving, in a small central Minnesota town. I mostly write and make digital art. I'm only interested in three things: that which exists within the universe; that which exists beyond; and that which might exist.

Archives

Catholic Blogs on Google+

Advertisement

ACWB Contributor

NewEvangelists.org Contributor

Sponsored links

Advertisement

Disclaimers

The opinions expressed in this blog are my own. As a Catholic layman, I make an effort to be informed about the teachings of the Church, and will repeat what I have found. For more 'official' statements, I suggest that you talk to a priest or deacon in your area. Or check out the ‘Official’ websites on my Blogroll page.

Although I make an effort to select meaningful and qualified information for the external links I create, I have no control over content on websites or blogs other than mine, and cannot be held responsible for their contents.

I have limited control over the advertisements and video links appearing on this blog. I do not necessarily endorse any of them.